Gov. Rick Snyder’s mission statement for his administration is “relentless positive action,” but another one could apply: “Show them death, and they’ll accept amputation.”

That second one was perfected by Michigan’s last Republican governor. Though Snyder isn’t terminating public employee benefits and protections, those affected have to know there’s a worse alternative to what he’s leading with. The status quo, as has been made clear, isn’t an option.

There doesn’t appear to be a legal obligation for the state to provide health-care benefits to retirees and that’s the premise behind a House bill being pushed by the Snyder administration.

State employees hired after 1997 -- who were enrolled in a 401(k)-type retirement plan after then-Gov. John Engler got lawmakers to get rid of defined benefit pensions for new employees -- would lose their existing retiree health benefit.

But they would receive a lump sum upon retirement they could use to purchase their own insurance. That amount would depend on how long they’ve worked for the state. A 45-year-old with 13 years in would receive between $35,000 and $55,000. If they worked until 62, they’d need three years of coverage before Medicare kicked in.

Current retirees and those hired before 1997 that remained in the defined benefit system would keep their retiree benefits if they paid 4 percent of their wages to pay for it. That would replace the 3 percent wage contribution signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm that’s being litigated in court.

But what’s good for state employees should be good for other public workers as well, including legislators. Retiree cost containment is likely in the offing for school employees as well.

As for current public employees, the last proposal to remove health care from the bargaining table was made two years ago by then-Democratic House Speaker Andy Dillon. His plan would have enrolled everyone into a state-managed system.

Snyder has signed onto a Senate Republican proposal that retains collective bargaining at all levels of government. But it limits public employers, including local governments and school districts, to paying no more than 80 percent toward the premium. House Republicans prefer imposing hard caps on the employer’s cost, no more than $15,000 for a family policy, for instance. As insurance costs rise, so would the employees’ share.

Public employee groups say they’ve already given at the table. Republicans counter taxpayers in Michigan’s private sector have given a lot more.

Snyder and his aides say the unsustainable will be confronted. The demographic reality of an aging population requires more of their retirement income be taxed. And just as the private sector is shedding retiree health-care benefits and requiring current employees to pay more for the coverage that remains, the public sector will have to do so as well.

“The brutal facts are we know what the liability is, we know what the trajectory is and I think everyone agrees it needs to be dealt with,” Budget Director John Nixon told the House Appropriations Committee last week.

Democrats know that. It’s why they agreed with Granholm’s 3 percent solution. If they’d sign onto the idea of health-care cost containment, they’d be in a position to improve it. That includes ensuring state workers have the option to retain coverage in retirement, though they’d have to pay for it.

Instead the bills moving forward require more teacher evaluation, make removal for misconduct less time consuming and costly, allow principals to sign off on teacher placement decisions and create a mechanism in which tenured teachers can be placed back on probation for ineffectiveness.

It’s a work in progress. Still to be determined is what the evaluation standards will be, who will do the evaluating and whether managers will be held to the same student-growth standards as teachers.

Another Snyderism says policy change should be “simple, fair and efficient.” As it turns out, very little of what’s been going on is simple. Efficiency will depend on how that change is managed.

The most important question lawmakers, taxpayers and those affected have to ask, and hopefully agree on: Is it fair?